Birkikara townhouse spared demolition over heritage value

The Planning Authority has last week refused a proposed apartment block in place of an old Birkirkara townhouse, which has been recommended for refusal due to its impact on the urban skyline.    

The project on Triq Santa Rita and Sqaq Karla would have resulted in the partial demolition of the existing building  in B’Kara’s  Urban Conservation Area to make way for 10 garages at basement level, one terraced house, two maisonettes and nine apartments build over four levels.

The project hit a brick wall after the case officer recommended its refusal after describing it as “speculative development”.

The development was proposed by Jason Mifsud’s Grand Property Holdings, and designed by architect and former planning minister George Pullicino.

The case officer said the project would “rescind the entirety of the heritage value of the site in favour of a speculative development.”

Earlier plans foresaw the complete demolition of the building, but new plans proposed the part demolition, and retaining the main façade with its St Joseph niche and the part of building visible from the street.

The Santa Rita street building is adorned by an arched niche of St Joseph at an angular pediment topped by a cross, with a cornice at the bottom, a metal hook and lamp, and an 1886 inscription granting an indulgence by Mgr Antonio Mario Buhagiar. Located at the edge of the town’s UCA, it is surrounded by modern and traditional buildings.

But the case officer said the redevelopment of this site was sensitive, as it leads pedestrians into one of the older parts of the Birkirkara UCA. “With the right and sensitive alterations and through restoration of the site, it can be developed into an exemplary building showcasing out heritage while also being habitable.”

As proposed the development will disrupt the streetscape with blank party walls, as well as committing the rest of the perimeter for further extensions into the UCA.

Architect George Pullicino insisted that the site lies at the end of the UCA, and is already surrounded by three-storey high buildings.  The case officer disagreed, arguing that another ‘transition’ would only add more pressure on the area with nothing but economic gain for the developer. “The opposite buildings located within scheme cannot be taken into consideration since if these structures had to be considered, all the properties within UCA that front-schemed areas can be committed with the same height.”

Pullicino argued that that most of the rooms in the existing building are very small, and sub-standard for today’s residential sanitary requirements and are either dangerous, or in a very bad condition in terms of structural stability. Moreover, the building used to house five separate household units, and the building is so fragmented “that it is impossible to turn it into decent households to today’s standards”.